In terms of intelligence

[TheIllusionist]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Of course it’s true that the reason doctors are on average of high intelligence has a lot to do with the gating function of standardized testing, but I think that people who think medicine does not require that much intelligence generally either underestimate the abstraction and rational reasoning involved in competent medical practice or overestimate what average intelligence really looks like.

On the first point, the practice of medicine involves very complex cognitive processes including analyzing large amounts of data and coming up with the most likely, most parsimonious explanation while simultaneously filtering and minimizing the importance of other abnormal data based on context. Many exam findings, historical data, and lab results can be either critical or meaningless depending of the context of other data which similarly can be critical or meaningless. This is a very difficult cognitive task and requires abstract reasoning, attention and salience and suppression processes.

On the second point, people in medicine have often spent 8+ years rarely interacting intimately with people of truly average intelligence, so they forget what level of functionality this implies. I’m in psychiatry and we frequently have to estimate intelligence because people who are intellectually sub-normal often have the potential for poor coping and maladaptive behavior. People with average intelligence will often have occasional concrete proverb interpretation, sometimes need clarification of tasks even when seemingly presented in a clear and simple way, and are often incapable of even college level education (though generally are capable of high school graduation). Medicine generally requires superior intelligence.

Great post. But I am curious about your last statement. By the way you phrase, I get the impression that even you think that there are exceptions to the superior intelligence trend. If we were to assume that some of those exceptions made it through medicine meritocratically, does that not demonstrate that someone of non-superior intellect is capable of being a doctor? For even physicians, there is an intelligence distribution, one that implies that there are people on the lower end capable of entering the profession.

Perhaps, I should clarify something. When I made the statement in my earlier post that the majority of people are capable of being physicians, I meant their inborn or "at birth" potential. I do believe that if most people were raised in near ideal circumstances, ones that nurture intellectual development to nearly its fullest, many more than status quo would have the ability to successfully become doctors.

 

[Newyawk]

Great post. But I am curious about your last statement. By the way you phrase, I get the impression that even you think that there are exceptions to the superior intelligence trend. If we were to assume that some of those exceptions made it through medicine meritocratically, does that not demonstrate that someone of non-superior intellect is capable of being a doctor? For even physicians, there is an intelligence distribution, one that implies that there are people on the lower end capable of entering the profession.

Perhaps, I should clarify something. When I made the statement in my earlier post that the majority of people are capable of being physicians, I meant their inborn or "at birth" potential. I do believe that if most people were raised in near ideal circumstances, ones that nurture intellectual development to nearly its fullest, many more than status quo would have the ability to successfully become doctors.

Becoming a doctor isnt just about having a higher than average IQ. 50% of people dont have the ability to succeed at becoming a doctor simply because they fall in the top half of the IQ range.

Weve established that it takes the ability to work much harder in school than most other professions. I know plenty of rich kids (from NYC) who either 1. Dont have the particular intelligence required to succeed in this field (not saying theyre dumb overall..) or 2. Dont have the work ethic required/ability to sit in a desk for days and study

 

[sloop]

Great post. But I am curious about your last statement. By the way you phrase, I get the impression that even you think that there are exceptions to the superior intelligence trend. If we were to assume that some of those exceptions made it through medicine meritocratically, does that not demonstrate that someone of non-superior intellect is capable of being a doctor? For even physicians, there is an intelligence distribution, one that implies that there are people on the lower end capable of entering the profession.

Perhaps, I should clarify something. When I made the statement in my earlier post that the majority of people are capable of being physicians, I meant their inborn or "at birth" potential. I do believe that if most people were raised in near ideal circumstances, ones that nurture intellectual development to nearly its fullest, many more than status quo would have the ability to successfully become doctors.

To be honest, I am of the impression that only a very small number of physicians are probably of truly average intelligence (IQ ~100). Like I said, these people are infrequently capable of college-level work, let alone medical school. I think that most physicians are probably significantly above average, but there may be a moderate number of physicians of modestly above average global intelligence (i.e. 110-115 or close to 1 SD above the mean) that may compensate for deficiency in one domain with proficiency in another and be capable of competent medical practice. Anecdotally, the most common example of this I saw in medical school was someone who was not awesome at abstract/critical reasoning but compensated through sheer information processing ability. These people often had trouble with certain topics which were more difficult to “brute force” but generally did okay, though they often spent far more time studying than other students with comparable grades because they couldn’t take the “shortcut” of learning a large cluster of facts by understanding a core concept.

That said, a lot of this is based on anecdotal observation and what I have experienced while interacting with and estimating intelligence of a lot of people who lie at various points on the spectrum of intelligence. I have not done a literature review on this topic or done any real research on it, so I might be talking out of my ass. This is just what seems consistent with my observations.

As an aside, you talk about the “birth potential” in relation to being capable of medical practice. What I will say about this is that it’s probably false (assuming what I have previously said that medicine requires superior intelligence). While by no means perfectly deterministic, intelligence has a very substantial heritability component—probably between 60-80%. It is likely that most people will not be intellectually capable of being a physician and much, if not most, of this is due to factors possessed at birth.

 

[W19]

The overwhelming majority of med students come from upper middle class -- i.e. they don't interact that much with the 'common' folks. I think because of that, they tend to underestimate their intelligence and/or overestimate the intelligence of the average folks out there...

 

[TheIllusionist]

I'll agree to disagree. Thanks for the robust and civil discussion.

 

[sloop]

As a general comment, I will say that a lot of conversations about intelligence are highly emotional because they elicit a myriad of political and historical concerns regarding the ways people might act on certain understandings of the nature of intelligence. I understand these concerns but we still have a responsibility to try to understand something like this based on science and facts. It is our moral responsibility to avoid engaging in eugenics and prejudice based on what we learn, not to prevent the learning in the first place.

I really feel that a lot of people avoid rationally thinking about and talking about intelligence simply because they’re afraid of what they might learn, which is a real shame.

 

[TheIllusionist]

As a general comment, I will say that a lot of conversations about intelligence are highly emotional because they elicit a myriad of political and historical concerns regarding the ways people might act on certain understandings of the nature of intelligence. I understand these concerns but we still have a responsibility to try to understand something like this based on science and facts. It is our moral responsibility to avoid engaging in eugenics and prejudice based on what we learn, not to prevent the learning in the first place.

I really feel that a lot of people avoid rationally thinking about and talking about intelligence simply because they’re afraid of what they might learn, which is a real shame.

And now we enter the meta discussion. I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said.

 

[mehc012]

The overwhelming majority of med students come from upper middle class -- i.e. they don't interact that much with the 'common' folks. I think because of that, they tend to underestimate their intelligence and/or overestimate the intelligence of the average folks out there...

I take this to mean that you would consider most of the 'common' folk to have less raw intelligence than most of the upper middle class. Am I interpreting your statement correctly?

 

[TheIllusionist]

We better be careful or we may enter Charles Murray territory

I take this to mean that you would consider most of the 'common' folk to have less raw intelligence than most of the upper middle class. Am I interpreting your statement correctly?

 

[W19]

I take this to mean that you would consider most of the 'common' folk to have less raw intelligence than most of the upper middle class. Am I interpreting your statement correctly?

No... I was merely saying that intelligence is acquired by nature and nurture... and most people need both.

 

[Newyawk]

I take this to mean that you would consider most of the 'common' folk to have less raw intelligence than most of the upper middle class. Am I interpreting your statement correctly?

Its no secret that the students of professors are privileged to both the genetic intelligence and the nurtured intelligence that comes from living in a home with intellectuals. I know many very wealthy people who grew up in 2,3,5 million dollar homes whose parents are not intellectuals and who amassed their wealth by other means (real estate, etc) and who were not privileged in the same way.

 

[sloop]

Its no secret that the students of professors are privileged to both the genetic intelligence and the nurtured intelligence that comes from living in a home with intellectuals. I know many very wealthy people who grew up in 2,3,5 million dollar homes whose parents are not intellectuals and who amassed their wealth by other means (real estate, etc) and who were not privileged in the same way.

This is correct.

You see, it’s an unpopular and uncomfortable thing to say because it goes against our egalitarian leanings but the truth is that intelligence is highly heritable and a big part of the reason higher socioeconomic classes do better on IQ is that they tend to come from people who have done well in the social hierarchy. IQ was developed explicitly as a distillation of those factors which predict with high reliability social dominance as well as occupational and financial success. The components of IQ literally came from regression analyses done with measures of these outcomes.

There are other reasons for the socioeconomic correlation, one of the most prominent probably being access to good nutrition, but the fact is that IQ, which by design is a predictor of socioeconomic success, has a giant genetic component.

As I said I’m not an expert on IQ but am interested in it. Tonight after this conversation I listened to a psychology lecture from the University of Toronto that I felt was extremely interesting and incidentally confirmed a lot of what I was speculating here regarding IQ. It also has some interesting comparisons with the Five Factor model of personality/NEO-PI, which I think people should be exposed to more in med school, btw—my residency really emphasizes it and it’s changed the way I think about behavioral predisposition and personality disorders. Anyway, he makes some interesting points about the high covariance of the subcomponents of fluid intelligence in comparison to the relatively independent nature of the five factors, but also how there is more differentiation at higher IQs (which I think has some bearing on what I was saying about some people of fairly high intelligence with particular subset deficiencies being able to compensate). At the end, he also explains the IQ ranges for various occupations. Physicians are not listed but attorneys are and the minimum intelligence for them apparently seems to be about 115.

For any who are interested, this is the video. It’s kind of long but he’s an engaging lecturer and it’s pretty cool stuff:



And yes, I’m a psychiatry resident who comes home from work and voluntarily watches 2 hour long YouTube lectures about psychometric testing. I’m a square, sue me.

 

[mehc012]

No... I was merely saying that intelligence is acquired by nature and nurture... and most people need both.

Interesting. I've never considered intelligence a 'nurture' based quality before...I've always considered it the raw inborn capacity for learning. However, there is a good deal of education necessary for it to be properly applied, which I always put into the 'nurture' category. So I suppose we primarily differ in how we define 'intelligence'.

I hope the question itself didn't come across as aggressive. I know this is a touchy subject, but I was genuinely curious. I've always tended to personally figure that raw intelligence (by my definition the inborn component) is fairly evenly distributed across the population, perhaps with some skewing as it may tend to improve the chances of someone becoming successful, but that success typically breeds success by virtue of maximizing the cultural and resource-dependent 'nurture' factors. I admittedly haven't looked into this enough to know what the predominant theories are, nor do I have any evidence one way or the other, so I won't try to debate it. I was simply curious since I don't think I'd explicitly heard the view I thought you were expressing before.

Its no secret that the students of professors are privileged to both the genetic intelligence and the nurtured intelligence that comes from living in a home with intellectuals. I know many very wealthy people who grew up in 2,3,5 million dollar homes whose parents are not intellectuals and who amassed their wealth by other means (real estate, etc) and who were not privileged in the same way.

Sure; as I said, success breeds success. But I've met plenty of relatively unintelligent professors whose kids would primarily be getting the nurture jackpot (probably the more important factor for actual success, however you prefer to measure that), and since intelligence is not sufficient for success (which also requires luck and timing and resources and having the value of education and self-improvement and tons of cultural factors), it's hard to say exactly how many intelligent people end up working their butts off to keep their family afloat instead of taking 4yrs to go to college.

 

[sloop]

From what I know, most of the “nurture” correlates with intelligence that have reliable and demonstrable effects with significant effect sizes relate to nutrition. Certainly this is a huge part of the explanation for population level differences in IQ.

As far as the idea of, for instance, being in a good school influencing IQ, this is likely only the case insofar as education promotes healthy neurodevelopment. The concept of any sort of “teaching IQ” or a curriculum for raising IQ has been attempted and does not work well. People’s IQs do not tend to change much over time.

 

[mehc012]

From what I know, most of the “nurture” correlates with intelligence that have reliable and demonstrable effects with significant effect sizes relate to nutrition. Certainly this is a huge part of the explanation for population level differences in IQ.

As far as the idea of, for instance, being in a good school influencing IQ, this is likely only the case insofar as education promotes healthy neurodevelopment. The concept of any sort of “teaching IQ” or a curriculum for raising IQ has been attempted and does not work well. People’s IQs do not tend to change much over time.

Right, but nurture can have a huge impact on educational potential. You can easily have 2 students in the same school, one with parents who value education and have emphasized to the child, throughout their lifetime, that education is the key to success and also a valuable quality for its own sake, who are willing to prioritize the student's pursuit of education over other things like chores, etc...and one whose parents are uneducated, who don't value education, who mock educated people and deride them for being uppity with their fancy talk, and who tell their child that nobody in the family ever graduated high school, it's a waste of time, it's not necessary, they're probably not capable, and why are they spending their time on homework when they ought to be helping around the house? Those two students might have the same inborn intelligence, maybe even the same resources in the sense of comparable family incomes, but their outcome in school will likely be drastically different (this comparison is basically my entire highschool in a nutshell, btw). There were kids in my highschool who would get detention in class for not turning their homework in and publicly mouth off to the teacher about how useless the assignments were, and then when they were kept after the bell rang, would hand in the already-completed assignments in secret so that their friends wouldn't find out they were the kind of person who did their schoolwork...served the detention just to keep their rep in their social circles. Nobody's going to think that the person who doesn't know highschool geometry is brilliant, but education ≠ intelligence, and how educated you end up has a lot to do with who you grew up around.

 

[Thor123422]

You don't need an insanely high IQ to be a competent physician.

Any IQ 105 that works really hard will do fine.

Being naturally more gifted is helpful, but you get where you go first and foremost on hard work, not intelligence. Even the smartest among us are putting in long hard hours to get where we're going, and we all end up in basically the same place.

 

[WildcatS11]

I think you had a typo

Fixed that for you

So many stories.

Just give me the bed number please. I will see the patient.

Oh grow up. For every story you have, I can counter it with a ridiculous junior consultant.

There are great EM docs. There are bad EM docs. Surprise - there are also great and bad docs in all fields, especially during residency. Let’s cut the antagonistic approach and work as a team.

 

[sloop]

Right, but nurture can have a huge impact on educational potential. You can easily have 2 students in the same school, one with parents who value education and have emphasized to the child, throughout their lifetime, that education is the key to success and also a valuable quality for its own sake, who are willing to prioritize the student's pursuit of education over other things like chores, etc...and one whose parents are uneducated, who don't value education, who mock educated people and deride them for being uppity with their fancy talk, and who tell their child that nobody in the family ever graduated high school, it's a waste of time, it's not necessary, they're probably not capable, and why are they spending their time on homework when they ought to be helping around the house? Those two students might have the same inborn intelligence, maybe even the same resources in the sense of comparable family incomes, but their outcome in school will likely be drastically different (this comparison is basically my entire highschool in a nutshell, btw). There were kids in my highschool who would get detention in class for not turning their homework in and publicly mouth off to the teacher about how useless the assignments were, and then when they were kept after the bell rang, would hand in the already-completed assignments in secret so that their friends wouldn't find out they were the kind of person who did their schoolwork...served the detention just to keep their rep in their social circles. Nobody's going to think that the person who doesn't know highschool geometry is brilliant, but education ≠ intelligence, and how educated you end up has a lot to do with who you grew up around.

Of course nurture can make a difference in attainment, but IQ does essentially define the upper limit of educational and occupational attainment. People of average to below average intelligence are almost certainly incapable of competent physician work, so by definition most people can never be a doctor simply because of their intelligence.

Education (and nurture generally) is important because it helps people maximize their functionality with a given intelligence. This is not the same as saying nurture is important in determining IQ itself. As I said, there are components of nurture involved with that but the most evidenced instances are not the things people tend to imply when they talk about “nurture” in this context.

 

[WisNeuro]

Of course nurture can make a difference in attainment, but IQ does essentially define the upper limit of educational and occupational attainment. People of average to below average intelligence are almost certainly incapable of competent physician work, so by definition most people can never be a doctor simply because of their intelligence.

Education (and nurture generally) is important because it helps people maximize their functionality with a given intelligence. This is not the same as saying nurture is important in determining IQ itself. As I said, there are components of nurture involved with that but the most evidenced instances are not the things people tend to imply when they talk about “nurture” in this context.

Mostly right, but average IQ individuals can be and are physicians. At least according to some of the last large datasets compiled looking at IQ and occupation across a wide range of occupations. I'd agree about the below average, but the lower quartile range definitely overlaps with the average range a good amount. I guess you could argue for the "competence" aspect, but I'd wager once someone has the training, personality factors (e.g., conscientiousness) start carrying a higher beta weight than IQ.

 

[sloop]

You don't need an insanely high IQ to be a competent physician.

Any IQ 105 that works really hard will do fine.

Being naturally more gifted is helpful, but you get where you go first and foremost on hard work, not intelligence. Even the smartest among us are putting in long hard hours to get where we're going, and we all end up in basically the same place.

This is almost certainly false. As I have mentioned IQ is basically a distillation of those things determined to predict academic and occupational success. 105 is nearly dead average and those people generally don’t go to college, let alone medical school.

Looking at it objectively in comparison to other occupations, medicine is a relatively complex job and almost certainly requires more intelligence than that.

 

[WisNeuro]

This is almost certainly false. As I have mentioned IQ is basically a distillation of those things determined to predict academic and occupational success. 105 is nearly dead average and those people generally don’t go to college, let alone medical school.

Looking at it objectively in comparison to other occupations, medicine is a relatively complex job and almost certainly requires more intelligence than that.

The last large study, I believe late oughts (2005ish range) saw college graduates with an average IQ of 113. So, yes, the average IQ is above average. But, the SD is 16 points, putting a ton of people squarely in the merely average range. Just a reminder that you need to look at all of the descriptives when looking at population level statistics as 100% of the sample does not sit at the average mark. So, yes, higher IQ individuals are definitely more likely to achieve a college degree, and later even more likely to obtain an advanced degree than those in the average range, but there are still a great deal of people in the average range who are doing it.

 

[Thor123422]

This is almost certainly false. As I have mentioned IQ is basically a distillation of those things determined to predict academic and occupational success. 105 is nearly dead average and those people generally don’t go to college, let alone medical school.

Looking at it objectively in comparison to other occupations, medicine is a relatively complex job and almost certainly requires more intelligence than that.

You've got far too hard of a boner for being superior.

The average people aren't going to be winning Nobel Prizes, but they can be perfectly competent physicians. In some ways an exceptionally high iq can make life more difficult, rural medicine for instance where it would be harder to relate to the population.

 

[Newyawk]

You've got far too hard of a boner for being superior.

The average people aren't going to be winning Nobel Prizes, but they can be perfectly competent physicians. In some ways an exceptionally high iq can make life more difficult, rural medicine for instance where it would be harder to relate to the population.

What? Are rural populations unintelligent by definition?

And moreover what evidence do you have to support your statement that high IQ = poor interpersonal skills??

 

[TheIllusionist]

One thing is for sure, I have a lack of trust in applying IQ test norms to all human populations. Guys like Richard Lynn believe wholeheartedly that the average IQ of certain African and austronesean groups is in the 50s, the average for those in the West with Down Syndrome.

Also, our society, in terms of equity, honestly sucks. Even if you look at England, those with Norman last names are significantly richer than those with non-Norman last names. The extent to which historical events influences placing one group over another and reducing meritocracy in society is absolutely insane. We do not have anywhere near opportunity parity for different ethnic and social groups throughout society. I don't think America is this giant bastion of egalitarianism, just because they broke away from a colonial power. The legacy of racism and discrimination strongly correlates with economic status, the opportunity gap, and the cycle of poverty today. It's no surprise that even the poor whites of Appalachia today tend to be Scots Irish, one of those most traditionally discriminated against and subjegated groups in Europe, since antiquity, when the British Isles were first invaded by the Romans.

The amount of confounding is tremendous. It's why MENSA is going to Indian slums right now looking for child geniuses. They know the opportunity gap in that country, due to the tremendous social and economic inequality, resulting from pervasive corruption and tremendous historical oppression of certain groups coupled with the legacy of colonialism, makes it so it's likely that there are tons of hidden geniuses there proportionally versus in the poor areas of more egalitarian nations.

I might buy the whole: rich people got rich because they are smart and will thus have smarter kids on average, IF society were much more meritocratic AND conditions far more equitable. But that is simply just not the case.

As an aside,
And just lol at stuff like this
…if you can solve this, then your IQ is purportedly above 120…

Most of us can do the above in less than 30 seconds...

 

[mehc012]

Of course nurture can make a difference in attainment, but IQ does essentially define the upper limit of educational and occupational attainment. People of average to below average intelligence are almost certainly incapable of competent physician work, so by definition most people can never be a doctor simply because of their intelligence.

Education (and nurture generally) is important because it helps people maximize their functionality with a given intelligence. This is not the same as saying nurture is important in determining IQ itself. As I said, there are components of nurture involved with that but the most evidenced instances are not the things people tend to imply when they talk about “nurture” in this context.

So...you agree with me, but feel the need to phrase everything slightly differently as if correcting me while ignoring the actual question this conversation was about? Cool stuff. I'd also love to hear how you came to such a strong ('almost certainly incapable') conclusion that competent physician work requires so much innate intelligence, and it's not just a factor of the competitive schooling required to track into it.

 

[TheIllusionist]

The last large study, I believe late oughts (2005ish range) saw college graduates with an average IQ of 113. So, yes, the average IQ is above average. But, the SD is 16 points, putting a ton of people squarely in the merely average range. Just a reminder that you need to look at all of the descriptives when looking at population level statistics as 100% of the sample does not sit at the average mark. So, yes, higher IQ individuals are definitely more likely to achieve a college degree, and later even more likely to obtain an advanced degree than those in the average range, but there are still a great deal of people in the average range who are doing it.

Seconded.

Physician IQ, when IQ testing of them was still so big, was reported be around 117. The MCAT has become less and less IQ heavy and more of an achievement test over time. I would argue that physician IQ may therefore have even fallen over time. Therefore an IQ of 100, around the US average, is not so far away from just 1 SD away. I would hazard a guess that there are certainly some average people who can make it.

 

[sloop]

You've got far too hard of a boner for being superior.

The average people aren't going to be winning Nobel Prizes, but they can be perfectly competent physicians. In some ways an exceptionally high iq can make life more difficult, rural medicine for instance where it would be harder to relate to the population.

How does IQ make it hard to relate to people? If anything the opposite is probably true.

I don’t care about being superior, I just don’t think pretending everyone is capable of anything is helpful.

So...you agree with me, but feel the need to phrase everything slightly differently as if correcting me while ignoring the actual question this conversation was about? Cool stuff. I'd also love to hear how you came to such a strong ('almost certainly incapable') conclusion that competent physician work requires so much innate intelligence, and it's not just a factor of the competitive schooling required to track into it.

The question at hand was what level of intelligence is required for medical practice. My point is that IQ does serve to set a limit on what types of jobs you can do. Education can help you to maximize your success within these limits but the limits are still there. You can’t take someone with an IQ of 85 and make them capable of being a physician through education.

 

[mehc012]

How does IQ make it hard to relate to people? If anything the opposite is probably true.

I don’t care about being superior, I just don’t think pretending everyone is capable of anything is helpful.



The question at hand was what level of intelligence is required for medical practice. My point is that IQ does serve to set a limit on what types of jobs you can do. Education can help you to maximize your success within these limits but the limits are still there. You can’t take someone with an IQ of 85 and make them capable of being a physician through education.

Nah, the question at hand in the post you quoted was about distribution of innate intelligence throughout SE classes and whether that's obscured by education...more of 'does a lack of education obscure innate intelligence' than the other way around. But you're right in that you're probably keeping better to the OP, so sorry about that.

And tbh, I was hoping for the baseline to finally be high on the intelligence front by the med school level, but that's really not the case. I've met fewer uneducated people in med school, but the average intelligence seems no different than in college. Sure, you can't actively be dumb to succeed, but you don't have to be particularly smart, either. And I'm not entirely sure thats not simply an artifact of how competitive the application process is.

So I guess my new question is, why are you so certain that it's an absolute requirement of the job and not just secondary to how popular the field is to the academically sucessful? I don't necessarily disagree, I am just a bit surprised by how certain you seem of it.

 

[Newyawk]

Seconded.

Physician IQ, when IQ testing of them was still so big, was reported be around 117. The MCAT has become less and less IQ heavy and more of an achievement test over time. I would argue that physician IQ may therefore have even fallen over time. Therefore an IQ of 100, around the US average, is not so far away from just 1 SD away. I would hazard a guess that there are certainly some average people who can make it.

An AVERAGE IQ of 117 with an SD of 15 (not necessarily the actual SD for this population) would mean only 15% of doctors have an IQ below 102. Moreover, it means that the overwhelming majority of physicians have far above average IQs.

Yes, perhaps an average IQ'd individual can BECOME a doctor. That doesn't mean the majority of doctors are of average intelligence nor does it indicate any level of competence in actual practice.

Nah, the question at hand in the post you quoted was about distribution of innate intelligence throughout SE classes and whether that's obscured by education...more of 'does a lack of education obscure innate intelligence' than the other way around. But you're right in that you're probably keeping better to the OP, so sorry about that.

And tbh, I was hoping for the baseline to finally be high on the intelligence front by the med school level, but that's really not the case. I've met fewer uneducated people in med school, but the average intelligence seems no different than in college. Sure, you can't actively be dumb to succeed, but you don't have to be particularly smart, either. And I'm not entirely sure thats not simply an artifact of how competitive the application process is.

So I guess my new question is, why are you so certain that it's an absolute requirement of the job and not just secondary to how popular the field is to the academically sucessful? I don't necessarily disagree, I am just a bit surprised by how certain you seem of it.

Just bc a person sounds and appears "dumb" to you doesn't mean they have a low IQ. Many people who speak well or can verbalize their thoughts eloquently think others are stupid for presenting poorly worded arguments. stop with your arrogance

 

[mehc012]

An AVERAGE IQ of 117 with an SD of 15 (not necessarily the actual SD for this population) would mean only 15% of doctors have an IQ below 102. Moreover, it means that the overwhelming majority of physicians have far above average IQs.

Yes, perhaps an average IQ'd individual can BECOME a doctor. That doesn't mean the majority of doctors are of average intelligence nor does it indicate any level of competence in actual practice.


Just bc a person sounds and appears "dumb" to you doesn't mean they have a low IQ. Many people who speak well or can verbalize their thoughts eloquently think others are stupid for presenting poorly worded arguments. stop with your arrogance

Wait, what? I'm not talking about arguments or debates or verbal whatevers. Heck, I'm not even particularly good at presenting an argument myself, as I think this thread clearly demonstrates (though I'm not even sure that I'm arguing, never mind what it is I'm arguing for at this point). I probably ought to have said 'expecting' rather than 'hoping', so that was poor phrasing, but I did expect this, largely because everyone at every step from highschool to med school repeats the mantra that 'everything will be harder at the next step, the people you go to school with will be smarter and you will find yourself below average and you won't be able to do xyz habit'. But

I never said that anyone in my school was dumb, just that if someone did actively have a significantly low IQ, I concede that that person would probably struggle in med school...which was the caveat to my overall point that I'm not convinced that you need a particularly high intelligence to be a doctor, but that there probably is a minimum threshold somewhere along the scale. In fact, what I was actually trying to say was that overall, my med school classmates don't seem that much different from the people in my highschool, many of whom did not continue schooling beyond or even through highschool. Remember that I was the one suggesting that there are plenty of intelligent people among those who don't go on to be 'successful' academically, and the one pointing out that just because you are successful academically doesn't necessarily mean you are particularly intelligent.

I don't understand how acknowledging that if a person were truly 'dumb', they would probably struggle, is an expression of arrogance. I never sat here saying that I win debates against my classmates and so therefore they are dumb, all I said was that if someone were dumb, they would have a hard time becoming a physician.

 

[Newyawk]

Wait, what? I'm not talking about arguments or debates or verbal whatevers. Heck, I'm not even particularly good at presenting an argument myself, as I think this thread clearly demonstrates (though I'm not even sure that I'm arguing, never mind what it is I'm arguing for at this point). I probably ought to have said 'expecting' rather than 'hoping', so that was poor phrasing, but I did expect this, largely because everyone at every step from highschool to med school repeats the mantra that 'everything will be harder at the next step, the people you go to school with will be smarter and you will find yourself below average and you won't be able to do xyz habit'. But

I never said that anyone in my school was dumb, just that if someone did actively have a significantly low IQ, I concede that that person would probably struggle in med school...which was the caveat to my overall point that I'm not convinced that you need a particularly high intelligence to be a doctor, but that there probably is a minimum threshold somewhere along the scale. In fact, what I was actually trying to say was that overall, my med school classmates don't seem that much different from the people in my highschool, many of whom did not continue schooling beyond or even through highschool. Remember that I was the one suggesting that there are plenty of intelligent people among those who don't go on to be 'successful' academically, and the one pointing out that just because you are successful academically doesn't necessarily mean you are particularly intelligent.

I don't understand how acknowledging that if a person were truly 'dumb', they would probably struggle, is an expression of arrogance. I never sat here saying that I win debates against my classmates and so therefore they are dumb, all I said was that if someone were dumb, they would have a hard time becoming a physician.

ok I apologize for misunderstanding your argument. everything here is very vague. I think ill exit now. good talk people.

 

[sloop]

The last large study, I believe late oughts (2005ish range) saw college graduates with an average IQ of 113. So, yes, the average IQ is above average. But, the SD is 16 points, putting a ton of people squarely in the merely average range. Just a reminder that you need to look at all of the descriptives when looking at population level statistics as 100% of the sample does not sit at the average mark. So, yes, higher IQ individuals are definitely more likely to achieve a college degree, and later even more likely to obtain an advanced degree than those in the average range, but there are still a great deal of people in the average range who are doing it.

This is interesting. See this is why I need to learn more about this stuff and why as I said I feel a lot like I’m probably spouting a lot of stuff based on minimal real knowledge and a bunch of intuitive assumptions.

Was this of college graduates with 4 year degrees or did it involve people with associates level degrees?

In any case I would think that it’s rare to find people of average intelligence in medical school, right?

 

[WisNeuro]

This is interesting. See this is why I need to learn more about this stuff and why as I said I feel a lot like I’m probably spouting a lot of stuff based on minimal real knowledge and a bunch of intuitive assumptions.

Was this of college graduates with 4 year degrees or did it involve people with associates level degrees?

In any case I would think that it’s rare to find people of average intelligence in medical school, right?

I believe it was of people with any college experience, some but no degree, associates, bachelors, masters , graduate. Rarity depends on how you define it. As someone else noted, it's less than 15%, depending on the dataset used, but that will still extrapolate to >100k of physicians in the average range, depending on which occupational data you use. If you want a metric crapton of citations on IQ, read "The Bell Curve" which is very controversial, and also "The Mismeasure of Man" it's counterpoint. Those two together have more info than any sane person would ever want to know about IQ and it's history in the US. And a whole lot about ethnic differences and measurement error, etc.

 

[sloop]

Mostly right, but average IQ individuals can be and are physicians. At least according to some of the last large datasets compiled looking at IQ and occupation across a wide range of occupations. I'd agree about the below average, but the lower quartile range definitely overlaps with the average range a good amount. I guess you could argue for the "competence" aspect, but I'd wager once someone has the training, personality factors (e.g., conscientiousness) start carrying a higher beta weight than IQ.

I do agree that it’s not impossible to become a physician with average intelligence. I just think it’s probably very difficult, pretty rare, and that these people will probably have a hard time with medical practice.

Regarding personality factors, just for my own learning: correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding was that only conscientiousness is particularly independently and positively associated with the sort of attainment we’re discussing, so when discussing personality factors in this context were mainly talking about conscientiousness. My understanding is that openness may also be associated but that it covaries with IQ quite a bit.

I definitely agree that conscientiousness is probably very important for physician practice.

 

[WisNeuro]

Again, depends on what you see as "very rare." Clinically, I wouldn't say that 15% is very rare. Uncommon, yes, rare, no. As to having a hard time with medical practice, I imagine it really depends on specialty and career setting.

 

[sloop]

Again, depends on what you see as "very rare." Clinically, I wouldn't say that 15% is very rare. Uncommon, yes, rare, no. As to having a hard time with medical practice, I imagine it really depends on specialty and career setting.

Yeah, fair enough. Uncommon is a better way to say it.

I do have a hard time seeing some of the people I’ve known with average intelligence practicing decent medicine but I suppose someone like that might be able to handle a specialty that was more repetitive. I’m trying to think about what this might be and I’m not really sure, probably some sort of outpatient generalist primary care field.

 

[GypsyHummus]

Podiatry. Even though they are still technically doctor/surgeons, you can get into a school if you are not picky with a 3.0 and 490 mcat. Getting through might be difficult.

If you can’t get into a podiatry school, I don’t want you anywhere near my body with a scalpel. It’s not that difficult to get a 3.0 and a 490 mcat in undergrad. It’s not like asking for a 3.7 515 for MD, or 3.5 505 for DO.

If you can’t even make a 3.0? Nursing probably. Pharmacy? I have seen some students get in with sub 3.0 GPAs like 2.7ish into pharmacy school, although, if you have a sub 3.0 in undergrad, I don’t want you mixing my medication!

Hypothetically if someone wasn't smart enough to become a doctor, but still wanted to work in health care, what career should they get into?

 

[Spodermin]

The hardest part of becoming a doctor is getting into medical school, namely doing well on the MCAT, which is essentially a bio-flavored IQ test. Everything else is essentially rote memorization. We like to pretend we're doing rocket science, but really we're just memorizing and regurgitating a bunch of facts. You don't need a high IQ to do that.

says the M1

 

[Foot Fetish]

says the M1

M2 actually.
And I've interacted with enough physicians to infer this (worked in a clinical field before med school). It's pretty obvious. With the exception of surgeons, who require manual dexterity in order to excel, anytime someone in medicine thinks they're hot ****, it's simply because they have memorized more than the next guy and are able to recall it at the appropriate time in clinical practice. It's that simple. That fund of knowledge is the basis of medical decision-making. Whether we realize it or not, that's what we mean when we say that someone is a "good clinician" or has good "clinical reasoning." It's not some intangible, nebulous property. And it certainly isn't a mere function of IQ. Real life isn't like "House"; 99.9% of the cases you will encounter have previously been described in the literature. High IQ is worthless if you never bother to put in the work.

 

[radsisrad]

The hardest part of becoming a doctor is getting into medical school, namely doing well on the MCAT, which is essentially a bio-flavored IQ test. Everything else is essentially rote memorization. We like to pretend we're doing rocket science, but really we're just memorizing and regurgitating a bunch of facts. You don't need a high IQ to do that.

And rocket science is so hard compared to, say, being enough of a polymath to juggle radiation physics, solid 3D perception, and a mastery of trials concerning surgical, medical, and radiation oncology (Rad Onc)? Knowing normal, non-diseased variant, and pathological anatomical changes... AND being able to interpret these in 5+ modalities (radiology)? Etc.

Med students often think that medicine is about tweaking insulin or adding a third antihypertensive based on an algorithm. And that's not their collective fault, because one cannot know the complexity of a field until one has gained expertise in it.

I don't believe someone with an IQ below 125 can be a great physician.

 

[Spodermin]

M2 actually.
And I've interacted with enough physicians to infer this (worked in a clinical field before med school). It's pretty obvious. With the exception of surgeons, who require manual dexterity in order to excel, anytime someone in medicine thinks they're hot ****, it's simply because they have memorized more than the next guy and are able to recall it at the appropriate time in clinical practice. It's that simple. That fund of knowledge is the basis of medical decision-making. Whether we realize it or not, that's what we mean when we say that someone is a "good clinician" or has good "clinical reasoning." It's not some intangible, nebulous property. And it certainly isn't a mere function of IQ. Real life isn't like "House"; 99.9% of the cases you will encounter have previously been described in the literature. High IQ is worthless if you never bother to put in the work.

I'm not gonna argue with you that we need a solid knowledge base to do what we do. But if that's all it takes to make an excellent doctor, pretty much anyone could become a decent doctor, at least.

Word of advice, don't hold a strong opinion on something you have limited knowledge on. It'll make you look like douche in your personal life, and in the hospital.

 

[TheIllusionist]

You need at least around an average IQ to become A doctor. Plenty of them around. Actually, I don't like our algorithm/random factoid testing heavy medical school board exams because I don't think they do enough to distinguish the thinkers who work hard from simply the work horses. There are some great questions but those don't seem to make up the bulk of those exams. STEP2 does seem to be an improvement over STEP1. Yeah there are algorithms, but at least there are creative questions ie. elderlt patient presents with frank melana + physical signs of hypovolemia and has st segment elevations on ekg and a lot of students knee jerk aspirin instead of blood transfusion.

To be a top tier doctor (medical accuracy wise not by some flimsy patient satisfaction marker), you need to be among the brightest AND most hard working of your peer group.

Middle tier ones will be a mix of decently smart ones with average work ethics, genius lazy ones, smart ones with below average work ethic, and average intellect ones with Herculean work ethic.

 

[Wilf]

You don't need an insanely high IQ to be a competent physician.

Any IQ 105 that works really hard will do fine.

Being naturally more gifted is helpful, but you get where you go first and foremost on hard work, not intelligence. Even the smartest among us are putting in long hard hours to get where we're going, and we all end up in basically the same place.

I know this is meant to be inspirational and kudos to you for that, but unfortunately it just is not true. The average IQ of college graduates is around 115. To get into medical school you generally need to be somewhere in the top few percent of college graduates.

Is it possible for someone with a 105 IQ to become a doctor? Probably. It will be a very tough journey though.

 

[anbuitachi]

Disclaimer: all of this applies to become A LICENSED DOCTOR not the BEST doctor or even a GOOD doctor necessarily.

In the words of Dr. Edward Goljan: I'm a hard worker with a 110 IQ.



I always felt that medicine was hyped up in such a way that it attracted people far more talented for it IQ wise than necessary, due to societal prestige surrounding its nobility and relatively good compensation. It's artificially competitive. I also do believe that, in the not so distant past, medicine needed a much more cavalier spirit along with a more intuitive and creative mindset. Evidence based medicine saves lives, but it has done to medicine what the assembly line did to the blacksmith. The blacksmith used to take pride in making the product from start to finish. In one generation, his son became or was replaced by an assembly line worker. Someone who couldn't take the same pride in his work because he was mindlessly doing the same repetitive step over and over again. Evidence based medicine, albeit not nearly as profoundly, has similarly pigeonholed people into doing specific things in specific situations. It has made everything a factory kind of algorithm. Yes there are cool exceptions, but for the most part, you are following a rule book. If you deviate and something happens, your ass can get sued far easier than if you never took risks and even more people died. And mastering a physical exam or eliciting information the most efficient way out of patients are far less about IQ type intelligence than they are about the EQ kind and just plain conscientiousness and mindfulness.



I agree with the last part for sure. That's the most socially apt answer in that situation.

However, I do believe that those in medicine tend to overestimate how much their innate intelligence contributes to their success in the field. I think they tend to underestimate, how generally speaking, their relatively better off early educational and/or socioeconomic circumstances played a role. Most of my friends with very good scores and grades are from rich families. They grew up in towns with great schools in two parent households. They were read to as children, and traveled all over the world well before most of us can even think of the opportunity. Hillary Clinton said that her granddaughter will hear 30,000 more words on average compared to a child in the lowest income bracket. There are studies showing that if people aren't exposed to the concept of relative vs. absolute comparisons before a certain age, they have a very very hard time picking it up later on. Subtle and not so subtle differences early on matter A LOT.

Later on, when these same kids went to college, they had either a cushy campus job or not job at all, thus allowing them to dedicate tremendous time to their studies. They never had to worry about the cost of application fees because their parents would just delightfully fork over the money. Of course, NOT ALL, of the top students I know are like this, but a disproportionately high number are.

Honestly, I have met very few aspiring med students that came from a wealthy or upper middle class background that really wanted to get into med school, yet couldn't eventually get in. Generally, it's really bad life circumstances that set people up in a bad position to get into med school. Or it's people that are far lazier than they would like to admit, the types of people always looking for shortcuts. The average IQ of docs isn't a lot more than 1 SD above the mean. An SD is about 15 points on an IQ test, so that means there are certainly people within the average range that can become docs. IQ has a ton to do with nutrition and early childhood attention/education. Adjusting for socioeconomic factors, more than 50% of the population is above an IQ of 100. It explains why with improvements in those areas, IQ has been rising, since the early 1900s fairly consistently. By definition, I do believe the majority of people have the cognitive prowess to become doctors. IMO, the real difference maker is opportunity and effort.

Also, now I do realize that getting into school itself may be a barrier for some of the more average IQ folks. However, I think they can get past that or always succeed in the Caribbean, if they have enough money and the right mindset.

On a side note:
I would frankly score similarly on some med school exams, if I took the class in the 10th grade or now, despite my reasoning capacity and critical thinking skills vastly improving since then. Maybe I would have done better in the 10th grade because it was before I "discovered" women and mind altering substances.

Getting in with an IQ of 105? Thatd be hard to believe seeing as median IQ is 100. And average sat score is like 980 in this country? Maybe in the old days but prob not now

Someone should do a study and give a IQ test to med students and see what the average is! Id totally read that article haha

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Getting in with an IQ of 105? Thatd be hard to believe seeing as median IQ is 100. And average sat score is like 980 in this country? Maybe in the old days but prob not now

Someone should do a study and give a IQ test to med students and see what the average is! Id totally read that article haha

I haven't seen a study recently, but full disclosure, I also haven't looked. I've personally assessed med students and physicians whose IQs fell in the average range, although they typically had other identifiable cognitive strengths (most commonly memory). It's also a restricted sample, since I didn't/don't usually see folks when everything is going well.

More often than not, unsurprisingly, they were high average. This is also, of course, entirely anecdotal. And while I've given quite a few intelligence tests, the plural of anecdote doesn't = data.

 

[W19]

I haven't seen a study recently, but full disclosure, I also haven't looked. I've personally assessed med students and physicians whose IQs fell in the average range, although they typically had other identifiable cognitive strengths (most commonly memory). It's also a restricted sample, since I didn't/don't usually see folks when everything is going well.

More often than not, unsurprisingly, they were high average. This is also, of course, entirely anecdotal. And while I've given quite a few intelligence tests, the plural of anecdote doesn't = data.

It's hard for me to believe that there are physicians and US med students out there with IQ of 100...

 

[TheIllusionist]

Getting in with an IQ of 105? Thatd be hard to believe seeing as median IQ is 100. And average sat score is like 980 in this country? Maybe in the old days but prob not now

Someone should do a study and give a IQ test to med students and see what the average is! Id totally read that article haha

Standardized tests have become less g loaded, essentially more of achievement tests than aptitude ones recently. If anything, past studies might overestimate by a tiny bit. It's part of the reason MENSA used to accept certain tests like the SAT but no longer does. In part, to compete with the more popular achievement oriented ACT, the SAT has become more and more achievement oriented.

IQ tests for testing ability not just to help diagnose disability, have fallen out of favor in many educational realms. Even at my elementary and middle schools, there was a program called Gifted and Talented, and the basis of it's admittance was the results of a school administered IQ test. Of course as kids, we had no idea what was going on. We would just leave class for an hour a day to do these weird enrichment exercises.That program, I believe, was recently discontinued.

I also believe that IQ is limited, with regard to testing for exceptional intellectual ability. I am a fan of multiple intelligence theory, but I'm just a guy with an opinion.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

It's hard for me to believe that there physicians and US med students out there with IQ of 100...

I would imagine that even the limited studies/data out there evaluating IQ scores in med students and physicians show ranges of scores that include those "down" to 100. As I said above, difficult as it might be to believe, I've personally tested med students and practicing physicians in that range. Not many, but I don't typically see many physicians and med students in general.

I've also tested grad and vet students in that range. Again, not many, but IQ is only one facet of ability.

 

[anbuitachi]

Standardized tests have become less g loaded, essentially more of achievement tests than aptitude ones recently. If anything, past studies might overestimate by a tiny bit. It's part of the reason MENSA used to accept certain tests like the SAT but no longer does. In part, to compete with the more popular achievement oriented ACT, the SAT has become more and more achievement oriented.

IQ tests for testing ability not just to help diagnose disability, have fallen out of favor in many educational realms. Even at my elementary and middle schools, there was a program called Gifted and Talented, and the basis of it's admittance was the results of a school administered IQ test. Of course as kids, we had no idea what was going on. We would just leave class for an hour a day to do these weird enrichment exercises.That program, I believe, was recently discontinued.

I also believe that IQ is limited, with regard to testing for exceptional intellectual ability. I am a fan of multiple intelligence theory, but I'm just a guy with an opinion.

Definitely limited and but to even become a doctor, you have to pass SO many exams, and do well on them! The average GPA is like a 3.8 now in med schools? maybe 3.7 in lower tiers? I dont know about DOs. You have to do well in so many classes, and then do well on MCAT, then step 1 2 3 , in training exams, board exams, that it's just really hard for me to believe that one can accomplish that and not do above average on IQ test assuming they take the IQ test seriously

 

[Ender1]

From what I've seen of the studies on this topic, the average IQ of doctors has been 120-125. Somebody before cited a study where the lower bound was an IQ of 107 for a doctor.

Whilst Medicine is certainly not as g-loaded as subjects such as Physics and Mathematics, it is still unsurprising to me that a high IQ helps in Medicine. People have mentioned the MCAT, and in the United Kingdom, they use the UKCAT (which is essentially an IQ test) or the BMAT (which contains a section on reasoning). Universities wouldn't be using them if they didn't predict anything.

Moreover, even if we grant that Medicine can be passed with lots of memorization as opposed to the understanding of concepts, the understanding of the concepts really does help when it comes to remembering them. Hence, individuals with higher IQs are more likely to succeed, other things being equal, simply because they're more likely to understand the concepts behind what they're learning. Of course, hard work can compensate for lack of understanding to some extent as others have said, but for someone with a high IQ and who works hard... the medical world is their oyster. In general, the best predictor of job performance is, by far, IQ, followed by conscientiousness.

And even then, in anatomy, spatial ability really does help. In pharmacology and other topics, verbal ability really does help - some people would get intimidated merely by the words that are being used. When you're reading an ECG, your ability to recognize patterns really does help (yes, we're taught how to read ECGs, so we know what we're meant to be doing and looking for, but we also know what we're meant to be doing and looking for in IQ tests too. IQ tests differentiate between people who can find what they're meant to be looking for, and those that can't.) Same goes for diagnosing patients in general.

I would also respectfully disagree with the invocation of "emotional intelligence", which has no predictive power whatsoever and should not even be considered a concept. Being able to socialise with patients is obviously a must, but most medical students will be able to do this anyway, having been interviewed. Taking a history and making a diagnosis, like many other things in medicine, actually requires you to be able to follow an algorithm and use your IQ. A history taking session actually depends greatly on working memory, which is one component of general intelligence (which is what IQ measures).